Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
KungBolander

GC12 needs maintenance?

Recommended Posts

It seems some geocacher posted GC12 needs maintenance on Oct 11, 2019. He/She did not post a find or DNF at the same time, and since then many cachers have found it. Is there a way to remove that log (obviously a scam) , or how will HQ handle it?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, KungBolander said:

It seems some geocacher posted GC12 needs maintenance on Oct 11, 2019. He/She did not post a find or DNF at the same time, and since then many cachers have found it. Is there a way to remove that log (obviously a scam) , or how will HQ handle it?

I think the CO should handle it. Is the CO not able to?

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I think the CO should handle it. Is the CO not able to?

 

Exactly. 

 

The GC12 owner is active...Last Visited 01/11/2020

Share this post


Link to post

Why would they have posted a DNF? They found the cache (though either that or the NM is mis-dated). And why are you calling it a scam? Multiple people have mentioned the same problem with that cache in their find logs and there's another NM from September.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

That user found the cache on 9/21. It seems they logged it on 10/11 using the checkbox for NM, and the default date for that NM log is the current date, not the date of the primary log you're posted (backdated to 9/21 in this case).  That's the reason.  And another reason it's awkward to post a log with canned text and a date you can't change. I would edit edited the NM log to update the text and set the date to 9/21 manually.

 

Actually if I wanted to post a NM I would have posted and saved the log as close to the date I found it if not on the same day, not a half month later... =P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I would edit edited the NM log to update the text and set the date to 9/21 manually.

I don't think you can edit the date on NM logs. I think their date is locked to the date you post them.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ah possibly, it's been a while :P

 

ETA: And by that I mean, I tend to manually post my NM logs as soon as possible anyway

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, niraD said:

I don't think you can edit the date on NM logs. I think their date is locked to the date you post them.

That's how it works via API too, no matter what the date in GSAK, GC changes it to the date it's posted.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently GC12 did need maintenance.  Fortunately for the CO, someone else did it for them on November 16, 2019.

 

Quote

We brought a new 5 gallon bucket with a lid to replace the leaking one. The blue bucket had about 4 inches of water in it. The logbook was also a sopping dishrag. Thankfully, the smaller container inside contained a dry log notebook and swag. Signed the log 5xfj and did a bit of work. We moved all the viable items to the new container, including the laminated "You found it! GC12" photo sign.

We carried the older bucket with broken lid and sop messy logbook out. If the CO wants the bucket and logbook back, please contact us soon!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Apparently GC12 did need maintenance.  Fortunately for the CO, someone else did it for them on November 16, 2019.

 

And unfortunately for the CO the NM flag is still active, so could well end up on the chopping block unless the CO does something, either OM-clearing, a physical checkup, or negotiating its life with a reviewer.  None of the above? Could fall prey to the abandonment clause...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
9 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Apparently GC12 did need maintenance.  Fortunately for the CO, someone else did it for them on November 16, 2019.

 

And unfortunately for the CO the NM flag is still active, so could well end up on the chopping block unless the CO does something, either OM-clearing, a physical checkup, or negotiating its life with a reviewer.  None of the above? Could fall prey to the abandonment clause...

 

Technically not just one - they've been sitting on multiple NM logs for GC12 since September - the log noted above was just the latest.  Lucky for them, they sat on their...hands...just long enough for someone else to take care of the problem.  If only there were some sort of log they could post, knowing that maintenance has been done, that would avoid a reviewer having to step in and remind them of their responsibilities.  Or, if they're not up for maintaining the oldest two caches in Oregon anymore, I'm sure someone else would be willing to step up to the plate. 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And unfortunately for the CO the NM flag is still active, so could well end up on the chopping block unless the CO does something, either OM-clearing, a physical checkup, or negotiating its life with a reviewer.  None of the above? Could fall prey to the abandonment clause...

 

There was a boat accessible cache that I was planning on doing several years ago.  It hadn't been found in a couple of years but just before I went for it someone visited GZ, couldn't find the container, and threw down a replacement in a "safer" location.  The throw downer posted new coordinates, but the owner didn't change them on the listing and didn't respond to a reviewers request to update the listing.   A month or so later, the reviewer archived the cache.  

 

Seems to me that GC12 could be in the same situation.   If the owner doesn't clear the NM with a OM log, it could be seen as abandoned just as that boat accessible cache that needed a coordinate update.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There was a boat accessible cache that I was planning on doing several years ago.  It hadn't been found in a couple of years but just before I went for it someone visited GZ, couldn't find the container, and threw down a replacement in a "safer" location.  The throw downer posted new coordinates, but the owner didn't change them on the listing and didn't respond to a reviewers request to update the listing.   A month or so later, the reviewer archived the cache. 

 

Wait, the reviewer condoned the non-owner throwdown? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, thebruce0 said:

 

Wait, the reviewer condoned the non-owner throwdown? :blink:

 

Wouldn't be the first time that happened to an old cache... cough..Mingo...cough

 

The reviewer archived the cache, so I wouldn't say that the throwdown was condoned.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know offhand the Mingo "throwdown" situation or order of events, but I'd think there's a difference between deliberation among reviewers to decide whether an exception should be granted about allowing a condoned replacement by a non-owner, vs posting a note to the CO asking them to update coordinates to a new user-supplied location after the user placed another one since it had gone multiple years unfound.

The latter process seems more questionable, internally inconsistent than the former. But, that's all in the past. Just an interesting situation, imo

 

Share this post


Link to post

Would people ever possibly warm to the idea of involuntary adoption to a willing active user? I mean, if there’s no response and the cache gets archived, is it so bad to instead turn over control to someone else who is willing to upkeep it? The CO clearly doesn’t care in the former situation, so would they care about the latter? Just curious.

 

I suppose there’s the awkward situation of a CO that had taken a hiatus and then they get back into the hobby later, and now their cache is owned by someone else. That would be weird.

Share this post


Link to post

The CO agreed to the responsibilities.  If the CO can no longer meet the responsibilities, archive (or adopt) the cache.  A new CO can then agree to responsibilities for a new cache. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Korichnovui said:

Would people ever possibly warm to the idea of involuntary adoption to a willing active user? I mean, if there’s no response and the cache gets archived, is it so bad to instead turn over control to someone else who is willing to upkeep it? The CO clearly doesn’t care in the former situation, so would they care about the latter? Just curious.

 

I suppose there’s the awkward situation of a CO that had taken a hiatus and then they get back into the hobby later, and now their cache is owned by someone else. That would be weird.

If there was someone willing to take it over they can go through the NM NA procedure then place one themselves and agree to maintain during its lifetime.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

Would people ever possibly warm to the idea of involuntary adoption to a willing active user? I mean, if there’s no response and the cache gets archived, is it so bad to instead turn over control to someone else who is willing to upkeep it? The CO clearly doesn’t care in the former situation, so would they care about the latter? Just curious.

 

I suppose there’s the awkward situation of a CO that had taken a hiatus and then they get back into the hobby later, and now their cache is owned by someone else. That would be weird.

My suggestion was unmaintained caches could be opened (after 30 days of non-response by the CO) to adoption by a Cache Guardian, who would have CO privileges/responsibilities. However, they would be on the basis if the actual CO showed up and wanted the cache back, they would get it (or agree to shared ownership).

 

However, it was incredibly poorly received. :rolleyes:

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

My suggestion was unmaintained caches could be opened (after 30 days of non-response by the CO) to adoption by a Cache Guardian, who would have CO privileges/responsibilities. However, they would be on the basis if the actual CO showed up and wanted the cache back, they would get it (or agree to shared ownership).

 

However, it was incredibly poorly received. :rolleyes:

I’m curious to know why it was poorly received.

I get that sometimes people are happy to see a cache go and a spot open up for a new cache. That’s cool. But there’s also a subset of the community that appreciates the “oldness” of some caches. Heck it’s the reason why this thread even exists. Usually nobody gives a crap if some random cache is going to be archived.... 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

I’m curious to know why it was poorly received.

...there’s also a subset of the community that appreciates the “oldness” of some caches. 

 

 

From what I've read, what they like is the "oldness" of the GC code. 

If it's not actually about collecting old codes, and we truly want to preserve the history of an old cache we would want it archived before it becomes a "grandfather's axe" -- everything has changed and been replaced and all that is original is the GC code and date of placement. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

I’m curious to know why it was poorly received.

Link for reference in case you are interested in joining the conversation:

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Wait, the reviewer condoned the non-owner throwdown? :blink:

 

Replacing a damaged container with another container of the same type is not a throwdown, even if the CO is not the one making the replacement. 

 

A throwdown is when a cacher leaves a replacement container instead of logging a DNF. Especially using a cheap micro, like a cap-n-cap or pill bottle, to replace a non-micro.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Replacing a damaged container with another container of the same type is not a throwdown, even if the CO is not the one making the replacement. 

 

A throwdown is when a cacher leaves a replacement container instead of logging a DNF. Especially using a cheap micro, like a cap-n-cap or pill bottle, to replace a non-micro.

A throwdown is any container left by a cacher without the permission of the cache owner.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, colleda said:

A throwdown is any container left by a cacher without the permission of the cache owner.

 

This Help Centre page says:

 

Quote

A “throwdown” is a container placed by a geocacher who cannot find the original cache.

 

If the original container is still there and found by the person replacing whatever broken bit with a new bit, I don't think it qualifies as a throwdown.

  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post

But...

7 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

It hadn't been found in a couple of years but just before I went for it someone visited GZ, couldn't find the container, and threw down a replacement in a "safer" location.

 

So yes, throwdown.

Share this post


Link to post

GC12 was a mess when I found it back in 2016. 

 

If someone replaced the bucket for him, that is not a throwdown. The cacher found the cache and signed the log. A throwdown is when you cannot find the cache and you replace it. 

 

If someone removed the old leaky bucket without permission, that is not a throwdown, that is theft. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ok there may be a cross-discussion going here. My latest comments are in response to NYPaddlecachers comment about another cache (not Mingo or GC12). That cache was a throwdown - it wasn't found by another person, who then set a replacement, and the reviewer wanted the owner to update the listing to those new coordinates, according to NYPaddlecacher's comment. That's a side-topic to Mingo and GC12.

 

Rereading NYP's comment now, I'm wondering if I'm misinterpreting the comment. Did the reviewer just want the CO to fix the listing, as in enable it and make sure it's good to go? Or to update it to the throwdowner's coordinates?  If the former, then it makes a little more sense, especially if the CO chose not to update to the user's coordinates. The latter is just very odd.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, elrojo14 said:

If someone removed the old leaky bucket without permission, that is not a throwdown, that is theft.

 

If they replaced the old leaky bucket with a nice new one of the same size and type, is that still theft?

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

From what I've read, what they like is the "oldness" of the GC code. 

If it's not actually about collecting old codes, and we truly want to preserve the history of an old cache we would want it archived before it becomes a "grandfather's axe" -- everything has changed and been replaced and all that is original is the GC code and date of placement. 

I could also argue that the history of cache includes everything that has happened to cache up to present date. The cache does not need to be in mint condition to be significant.  You wouldn't scrap Colosseum of Rome just because it is no longer maintained by the Romans? OK, it still may be, maintained by Romans but that's beside the point.  From historic POW maintenance of lack of it is part of life cycle of cache irrespective of who does it.

 

I liked the phrase  "grandfather's axe" , never heard that before.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, papu66 said:

I liked the phrase  "grandfather's axe" , never heard that before.

It from the old story about a guy who kept his grandfather's historic axe - of course, the handle has been replaced 4 times and the head twice...

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, papu66 said:

I could also argue that the history of cache includes everything that has happened to cache up to present date. The cache does not need to be in mint condition to be significant.  You wouldn't scrap Colosseum of Rome just because it is no longer maintained by the Romans?

 

I agree.

 

Tourists still flock to the Great Wall of China, particularly the section at Badaling as it is the most accessible from Beijing.  That section of the wall has been almost completely rebuilt within the last 5 or 6 decades.  So why do they bother going there if it's not the genuine 2000 year old wall?  Because the wall has been there in some shape or form for that long, and the sense of history is still there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't GC12 unusual in that the container is actually specified in the cache description? So unless the container is replaced like-for-like to match the description, it should be a new cache. Especially as, from the log, almost everything in the original container was thrown away.

 

I say only because there are some caches where the container is an intrinsic part of the cache, and probably need to be treated differently to a normal bison tube or lock and lock which are merely a container and have no link to the cache title/description.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Jester said:
7 hours ago, papu66 said:

I liked the phrase  "grandfather's axe" , never heard that before.

It from the old story about a guy who kept his grandfather's historic axe - of course, the handle has been replaced 4 times and the head twice...

See also George Washington's (or Abe Lincoln's) axe, or the original reference, the Ship of Theseus.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Jester said:
7 hours ago, papu66 said:

I liked the phrase  "grandfather's axe" , never heard that before.

It from the old story about a guy who kept his grandfather's historic axe - of course, the handle has been replaced 4 times and the head twice...

 

Google Ship of Theseus

 

 

ETA ...d'oh hzio! Beaten to the punch :P

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Google Ship of Theseus

 

 

ETA ...d'oh hzio! Beaten to the punch :P


In the UK, I think more people would know this now as Trigger’s broom.

 

Worth a watch: 

 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Jester said:

It from the old story about a guy who kept his grandfather's historic axe - of course, the handle has been replaced 4 times and the head twice...

 

Theseus' Ship is the classic version. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Jester said:

It from the old story about a guy who kept his grandfather's historic axe - of course, the handle has been replaced 4 times and the head twice...

 

We talk about Argyle Socks, replacing one square at a time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

When dad was teaching me to chop and split wood he told me the same story. Except it was Abe Lincolns axe. 

At a museum was a display of a child's skeleton and an adults. He told me the adult was George Washington. The child was George Washington when he was a boy.

I miss him.

Edited by RocTheCacheBox
Splg
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 4
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/13/2020 at 12:35 PM, Korichnovui said:

Would people ever possibly warm to the idea of involuntary adoption to a willing active user? I mean, if there’s no response and the cache gets archived, is it so bad to instead turn over control to someone else who is willing to upkeep it? The CO clearly doesn’t care in the former situation, so would they care about the latter? Just curious.

 

I suppose there’s the awkward situation of a CO that had taken a hiatus and then they get back into the hobby later, and now their cache is owned by someone else. That would be weird.

There is a mechanism HQ has set up with year 2000 caches such that the owner can designate a local geocaching org to take over the cache in the event archival seems likely. The CO and the Org must agree to this. This handles the demise of the CO who didn't anticipate the tragedy. It is not widely advertised as it need only involve the CO and the Org they choose. The goal is to keep Year 2000 caches going in the face of unexpected problems. 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

BTW Lobotomy performed maintenance today on GC12.

 

Two years ago I chose to message him that the bucket lid was cracked and the cache was a moldy, slimy mess and filled with several gallons of water. I dumped the water out. He promptly replaced the bucket and disposed of the swag. Even old caches need to be supported specially tourist draws.

 

I appreciate the "living will" maintenance plan for old caches. Eventually I suspect organizations should be able to add more "valued" caches to the list. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 12:35 PM, Korichnovui said:

Would people ever possibly warm to the idea of involuntary adoption to a willing active user? I mean, if there’s no response and the cache gets archived, is it so bad to instead turn over control to someone else who is willing to upkeep it? The CO clearly doesn’t care in the former situation, so would they care about the latter? Just curious.

 

I suppose there’s the awkward situation of a CO that had taken a hiatus and then they get back into the hobby later, and now their cache is owned by someone else. That would be weird.

 

The hypothetical situation you posed at the end of your post is exactly why involuntary adoption doesn't happen. That situation happened in reality many years ago, and that led directly to involuntary adoptions being stopped.

 

It all comes down to ownership. Geocaching.com is just a listing site where owners of geocaches can list them. It's explicitly laid out in the Terms of Use that the cache remains the property of the owner. Geocaching.com simply does not have the legal authority to transfer property from one person to another.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The A-Team said:

It all comes down to ownership. Geocaching.com is just a listing site where owners of geocaches can list them. It's explicitly laid out in the Terms of Use that the cache remains the property of the owner. Geocaching.com simply does not have the legal authority to transfer property from one person to another.

 

...except that now with a very recent TOU update if a cache owner is determined to have abandoned the listing by qualifying a few points now laid out in the agreement, HQ can assume a form ownership of the container and allow or request that someone retrieve it.

But until that point, the cache owner still owns their property in full and gc.com is just a listing service. = )

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/13/2020 at 7:17 PM, Korichnovui said:

I’m curious to know why it was poorly received.

I get that sometimes people are happy to see a cache go and a spot open up for a new cache. That’s cool. But there’s also a subset of the community that appreciates the “oldness” of some caches. Heck it’s the reason why this thread even exists. Usually nobody gives a crap if some random cache is going to be archived.... 

 

 

This bugs me.

What's the threshold for "oldness" that allows a cache to survive even when the CO isn't maintaining it?  Seven years?  Ten?  Fifteen?  Or is it age beyond owner abandonment?  What about if it's a film canister that's been out there for 18 years?  Does that make it less worthy than an ammo can? 

Maybe we should just, oh, I don't know, hold all caches and their owners to an equal standard and make, umm...guidelines?....for people to follow when hiding and finding and logging caches?  What do you all think about that idea?

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

This bugs me.

What's the threshold for "oldness" that allows a cache to survive even when the CO isn't maintaining it?  Seven years?  Ten?  Fifteen?  Or is it age beyond owner abandonment?  What about if it's a film canister that's been out there for 18 years?  Does that make it less worthy than an ammo can? 

Maybe we should just, oh, I don't know, hold all caches and their owners to an equal standard and make, umm...guidelines?....for people to follow when hiding and finding and logging caches?  What do you all think about that idea?

I think some of the oldness factor specifically comes from the Jasmer challenge. The rarer it is to fill the Jasmer spot, the more people care about the oldness of that cache, at least that’s my guess.

There are probably other factors too that could be fleshed out by more experienced cachers than me.

I remember finding a 2001 cache that is not far from my home and it still had the original logbook in it, good condition. I was pleasantly surprised to see the page-long entries that early cachers had written in it. It blew my mind and really had a strong impression on my whole outlook of the hobby.

Should all caches be preserved? I don’t think so. It’s great for an area to open up for someone to be able to put a fresh new idea there.

Should certain ones try to be preserved? I don’t know but it’s interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

I think some of the oldness factor specifically comes from the Jasmer challenge. The rarer it is to fill the Jasmer spot, the more people care about the oldness of that cache, at least that’s my guess.

There are probably other factors too that could be fleshed out by more experienced cachers than me.

I remember finding a 2001 cache that is not far from my home and it still had the original logbook in it, good condition. I was pleasantly surprised to see the page-long entries that early cachers had written in it. It blew my mind and really had a strong impression on my whole outlook of the hobby.

Should all caches be preserved? I don’t think so. It’s great for an area to open up for someone to be able to put a fresh new idea there.

Should certain ones try to be preserved? I don’t know but it’s interesting to think about.

 

 

Grid-filling, to me, is no reason to keep an abandoned cache active.  Maybe it's a reason to NOT abandon a cache...or to adopt it out to someone who won't.  Apparently the vast majority of COs of caches that fill those rare grid spots didn't think it important enough to keep them well-maintained.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

Grid-filling, to me, is no reason to keep an abandoned cache active.  Maybe it's a reason to NOT abandon a cache...or to adopt it out to someone who won't.  Apparently the vast majority of COs of caches that fill those rare grid spots didn't think it important enough to keep them well-maintained.

 

Or geocaching was really new back in 2000, and no one knew it would last this long.  Maybe (and I honestly don't know) attitudes were different - after all, geocaching stems from the concept of back country adventurers/hunters keeping caches of supplies hidden for later use, and that was not necessarily an individual thing...

 

Anyway, to the other question of what makes old caches imporetant to people, and what that threshold is?  It's different for everyone - I have travelled with friends who considered anything older than about 2005 really important to go find, whereas for me I get those sorts of feels for caches in the 2000 to 2001 range. Ultimately it may simply be circular, as in people care about some older caches because they care about those older caches.  Humans generally do love historical stuff...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...